The Greek Crisis: A Potential Stepping-Stone To Deeper Integration

Over the past five years, the world has been gripped in the suspense of an unfolding drama: that of the Greek sovereign debt crisis.  As the drama has moved towards its climax in the last few months, with Greece and the euro zone countries lurching from one nail-biting scene to another, the world has continued to watch and wait with bated breath, wondering what the ultimate outcome will be and worrying about its potential ramifications for the financial markets in Europe and beyond.

Despite the repeated injection of funds by Greece's creditors, namely the IMF, the ECB and the euro zone countries, Greece's plight remains dire: the country has lost 25 percent of its GDP over the past five years, the general unemployment rate is over 25 percent and double that i.e. 50 percent among the youth.  The country has strained and groaned under the imposition of austerity measures imposed by its creditors.  In the end, on June 26, her elected leaders chose to walk away from negotiations with creditors aimed at providing further bail-out funds in return for further austerity.  There followed a referendum in which the majority of Greek voters rejected bail-out terms offered by those creditors.

The European Union now finds itself in an unprecedented situation in which one of its members may default on a $3.9 billion in bond payments to the ECB on July 20th, having already earned the dubious distinction of being the first developed country to default on a loan from the IMF.  If the July 20 payment is missed, the ECB will likely cease propping up the Greek banks with emergency loans, Greece will plunge into bankruptcy and will have to start paying its bills in IOUs, all of which will probably lead it to exit from the euro. What the effect of such an exit will be on the financial markets in Europe and beyond and consequently on the global economy, is anyone's guess.

One of the problems with a Greek exit from the euro zone (commonly termed a "Grexit"), is that the monetary union was set up as a "no exit" union, meaning there are no legal avenues for those who have joined to leave it, and yet, as a practical matter, unless Greece and her creditors can come to terms before July 20, such an exit is likely to become a reality.  Even if this happens, however, there is nothing to stop Greece from staying in the EU although this relationship could rapidly become complicated if Greece finds herself unable or unwilling to follow the rules of the single market.  In the end, there is a chance that Greece may end up leaving the European Union.  Such a departure would set a terrible and unfortunate precedent for a Union that was committed to increasing its integration.  As the Economist points out "the long-term effect of an irrevocable union being partially revoked is unpredictable." 

What then, if anything, can be done to save the European Union from unraveling?

The answer may well lie in further integration and closer unity within the European Union.  Indeed, the American experience teaches us that further integration can be critical to solving Europe's financial crisis.  Most of us forget that American began life as a fiscal mess and that one of the main drivers for moving from a loose confederacy to a tighter federation was precisely the problem of the large debts that the thirteen American states had taken on during the revolutionary war and were finding themselves unable to repay. During the war each state had separately borrowed heavily from foreign powers. After the war, the states found themselves unable to repay what had become enormous debts.  The Confederation was hamstrung and unable to help, because it lacked the power to impose taxes and most states were not paying their share of assessments to the confederate government -- a condition that is familiar in the context of the European Union today.  Within the context of the American experience, the problem was further exacerbated because the states were printing their own money at will. The flood of paper money produced wild inflation in American economies.  The only solution was to move towards greater unity and integration by creating a federation with a central government capable of levying federal taxes that it could use to repay the foreign debts, or else risk disintegration.

The parallels with the EU's current dilemma are striking! One of the problems the European Union currently faces is the resistance by its member states to mutualizing liabilities, especially in the absence of mutualized responsibility, for example by being able to raise European-wide taxes to fund bail-outs or the ability to have shared decision-making over budgets, taxes and pensions in the first place.  As eminent economics experts have said, the crisis in Europe is at root a deep constitutional and institutional one rather than one of funding.  The real solution appears to lie in Europeans taking a quantum step toward deeper economic and political union which requires an acceptance that its member states must be willing to cede more sovereignty.

The insistence by EU countries on clinging excessively to sovereignty in the face of the suffering and chaos it is causing them individually and collectively, is not sensible.  Surely, policies and theories of how we organize ourselves as peoples and nations are there to serve our best interests and to lead to our well-being.  If they have ceased to do so and are patently injuring us, is it not time to reconsider and adjust them?  In this instance, giving up a modicum of sovereignty in accordance with clear rules, backed by collectively-created and shared enforcement mechanisms and agreeing upon sanctions for non-compliance that are applied even-handedly to all member states, may well go a long way to relieving the European Union of its current suffering and the Greeks of their plight.  While today it is the Greeks who suffer,  who is to say that in the absence of necessary reforms to the system, tomorrow other European countries like Spain, Portugal, Ireland or even France may not follow in its wake?

It was such a recognition that led the thirteen member states of the American confederation to take the momentous decision to fuse their interests by moving from a confederation to a federation, in which certain limited powers that affected their collective interests were delegated by them to a central government, while remaining powers were retained by the states themselves.  The Europeans might do well to examine closely this historical precedent that has resulted in the creation of a strong, unified country that overcame its debt problems and consider following suit by applying the adopting the principles of federalism to the European Union.  There is still time to use the Greek crisis as an opportunity or stepping stone, to create a watershed moment in the history of the European Union, one in which the obvious vulnerabilities of the common currency are recognized and addressed by taking swift, effective and unified steps to strengthen the EU by taking the next step towards creating a United States of Europe, as envisioned by Winston Churchill in the aftermath of the Second World War.

Building a World Federation: The Key to Solving Our Global Crises

HOT OFF THE PRESS -- January 1, 2015!

Humanity has been passing through stages of collective growth towards integration and unity.  Our current collective crises––climate change, financial upheavals, proliferation of nuclear weapons, gross human rights atrocities, mismanagement of critical natural resources––manifest our passage through a turbulent adolescence.

Humanity should take the next step towards maturity by establishing collective decision-making institutions that can evolve into a world federation of nation-states.  Only then will we have a truly peaceful world.

If these topics are of interest to you, I invite you to read my new book the front cover of which appears above and recommend it to your friends, family and colleagues.

You can get a copy of the book either in digital form or as a soft cover book at:

Amazon.com (or Amazon in the UK, Germany and other countries) or at Barnes & Noble (BN.com), or at kobo.com. It will also be available on Apple iTunes as an iBook.

Creating a Rapid Reaction Force for Eastern Europe: Necessary But Not Sufficient

The events that we have witnessed in the Ukraine over the past several months cry out for the global community of nations to rise to a new level of collective maturity and to agree upon a unified and robust response.  World events keep providing us with opportunities to learn how to come together as a community of nations and agree upon some foundational principles that will guide us in our international relations and which we will refuse to compromise regardless of our perceived short-term interests, especially our economic interests.

To allow any nation to provoke instability in another without consequence, especially if it leads to the death of innocent people as occurred when 298 passengers on board a Malaysian civilian airplane were killed when their plane was shot down over rebel-held territory of Ukraine, or to the illegal annexation of foreign territory as occurred when Russia annexed Crimea in the spring of this year, is to sow the seeds of international anarchy and lawlessness that bodes ill for the welfare of the global community.

The fact that NATO has chosen to respond to these events and others that are tearing at the fabric of Ukrainian society -- such as the continued unrest in Ukraine caused by separatists apparently backed by Russia that are claiming independence for the cities of Luhansk and Donetsk -- while certainly a positive movement, is alas not sufficient.  NATO's decision taken at its recent summit in Wales to create a Rapid Reaction Force consisting of 4.000 troops to safeguard the integrity of the Eastern European nations that border Russia, while a step in the right direction does not go far enough for a number of reasons.

First, we must be wary about unwittingly slipping back into old patterns of international behavior that have not served us well in the past, namely a Cold War mentality in which the "West" is pitted against  Russia.  It is time to leave these old patterns of international relations behind and to work on a collective global solution to problems of this kind.  Second, such half-measures are merely palliative and do not solve the underlying problems.  Third, because the solution is not one based on the international community speaking with one voice, it does not have the desired effect of forcing the bully on the international playground to back down and to think twice about his behavior.

The real question that we need to ask and answer as a global community is what should we do when any nation or terrorist network threatens the peace and stability of the international order?  Such a threat can be brought about by a range of behaviors that include for instance territorial aggression, unlawful nuclear proliferation (such as have occurred in North Korea and Iran), genocide (e.g. in Rwanda and Kosovo), other forms of gross human rights abuses against a population (e.g. Syria) or terrorist activities. The answer must surely incorporate the following elements:  it must be based on universal agreement of all nations; all nations must take ownership of the solution by contributing both financially and in the form of troops and equipment; it cannot take into account perceived short-term national interests such as the need for natural gas, or the desire to maintain a nation's status as a seller of international arms, both of which factors are apparently in play in the Ukrainian situation.

The decision by NATO to create a Rapid Reaction Force for Eastern Europe is to be lauded for the fact that it demonstrates the will of the member states of NATO to look past the dictates of expediency.  It further demonstrates that nations can be persuaded to do the right thing and look beyond their national self-interest to uphold higher international standards and that the nations are gradually demonstrating that there is a limit to the kinds of behavior they are willing to tolerate.  However, it is time for the international community to take the next step and come to collective agreement upon the establishment of a Rapid Reaction Force that is international in nature rather than purely regional, one that is there to serve the needs of the international community as a whole and to preserve the peace regardless of where it is threatened or breached.  Such a force would likely have regional components such as the one currently proposed by NATO for Eastern Europe but all of these regional components should be coordinated by and serve under the auspices of an international structure overseen by a central international institution (perhaps a much-improved and reformed Security Council) tasked with preserving the peace.

Although there is much work to be done to identify and agree upon the principles and policies that can serve the collective security needs of today as well as to carefully build a new institutional framework capable of embodying these collectively agreed-upon principles, there is no time to begin like the present!

The Case of Syria: Need Proof? Support the Creation of An International Intelligence Agency

Reports have it that on August 21st,  chemical weapons were used in an the Ghouta suburb of Damascus, Syria in contravention of international law and accepted international norms.  One would have thought that in the 21st century the international community would have reached a stage of maturity in which it would be able to react with appropriate outrage to such an incident while also having the necessary tools at its disposal to speedily punish the perpetrators, thereby deterring them and others from ever again using such outlawed and heinous weapons of mass destruction.

Alas, this is not the case.  A critical prerequisite for punitive action by the international community is solid proof establishing that such weapons have indeed been used and equally importantly, identifying those who ordered such use -- in this case the government and its agents or the rebels?  Although United Nations inspectors were eventually allowed access into the area -- albeit after a five-day delay during the course of which evidence might well have been destroyed --  their mandate was restricted to determining whether chemical weapons had been used at all, leaving open the crucial question of who had ordered their use.  

As various nations have debated whether or not they or anyone else should take action against the government of Syria, they have referred to and relied upon their own intelligence reports to convince their own people one way or the other:  David Cameron tried and failed to convince the British Parliament to vote in favor of Britain participating in punitive strikes against Syria.  The British legislators were apparently unconvinced that the chemical weapons attack had been perpetrated by Mr. Assad's forces.  Francois Hollande referred to the "a body of evidence" that pointed to Syria's culpability on the basis of which he was willing to commit himself and France to the use of force against Syria,. Turkey's foreign minister said Turkey had "healthy evidence" to implicate the Assad regime.  President Obama is in the process of presenting intelligence reports to various Congressional committees and members of Congress as he seeks Congressional authorization to use force against Syria.  Russia, on the other hand, says that she is not been shown proof that the Assad regime was behind the use of chemical weapons and that she doesn't believe that Syria has used them.

In an age in which we have access to such sophisticated technologies, it can't be that hard to determine the facts and to answer the simple questions:  Were chemical weapons used and if so, who is responsible for any such use?  Is it not time for us to start behaving responsibly and collaborate on establishing an international intelligence agency which would be structured so as to represent all nations and peoples of the world, and to act in their collective interest?  Such an agency should be granted the authority to send its inspectors into any area of the world where it is suspected that weapons of mass destruction are being used, without advance notice, in order to investigate.  The agency would thus be able to produce timely and speedy information that would be equally available to all nations, thereby providing the transparency and a shared basis upon which they can make decisions about how to respond.   Such an approach would serve many purposes:  it would eliminate suspicion and resulting accusations that any one nation was trying to doctor evidence in order to justify an attack that would serve some other nefarious agenda and would provide common information and evidence which could form the basis for meaningful consultation and decision-making as to whether such evidence warranted punitive action by the international community.  

In the event that the evidence did point to a serious breach of international law such as the use of outlawed chemical weapons, the international community would then need to take swift action to punish the country in question.  For this to happen, we also need to ensure that the international community has at its disposal a standing force made up of of troops from all nations of the world -- a truly collective force that is representative of the nations of the world and that acts in the collective interest of them all in accordance with pre-determined and agreed-upon rules of international law. 

The Dueling Forces of Integration and Fragmentation

That the world is being buffeted by storms of severe crises is not news even to the most casual observer of the international scene.  Chief among these are the financial crisis in Europe, which threatens to slow down economic growth worldwide, the environmental crisis as reflected in global warming and climate change, the looming food and water crises and the crisis of international security which encompasses issues of nuclear proliferation, human rights atrocities and acts of terror to name but a few.

What is more interesting and worth examining is the increasingly common reaction to these crises by peoples across the globe as reflected in their drive to separate and take refuge in fragmentation, all in the mistaken belief that independence will afford them more control of their own destinies, and will save them of the dangers of going down with the sinking ship of a larger country or region to which they belong. 

Looking at Europe alone, one is struck by the increasingly strident movement towards separatism as witnessed by the desire of the people of Flanders for further autonomy, the movement by the Catalans to gain independence from Spain and the drive by segments of the Scottish population to break away from the United Kingdom as reflected in the Edinburgh Agreement just signed between British Prime Minister David Cameron and Alex Salmond, the Scottish First Minister setting the terms for a Scottish referendum on the subject of independence to be held in 2014.  

The arguments that are offered in all three cases center on two main themes.  The first theme stems from the resentment of people in these regions who are relatively wealthy compared with the rest of their respective countries and who perceive themselves to be more hard-working, that their wealth and hard work are being exploited to support their poorer and/or lazier compatriots.  They resent being required to pay more in the form of taxes,  to give up revenues from their natural resources and to carry a large share in the debt of the larger countries to which they belong. 

The second theme rests on a strong desire to have decisions on fundamental policy questions be made by the people who are closest to and most affected by the decisions, rather than by distant institutions that are perceived as being out of touch with the needs of a particular group of people and that tend to apply a uniform policy to all without taking important differences into account.

One can see that what seems to lie at the root of these arguments is a genuine and legitimate desire on the part of people everywhere to have a reasonable say in the crafting of their own destinies.  This is a theme our times as reflected in the wave of nations participating in what has become known as the Arab Spring.  The sensible question to ask then is: in what instances is centralization a boon and when does it become out of touch with the grass roots and therefore oppressive and unfair?  The next question is: how can we craft a system of government that allows people to consult upon their legitimate needs while at the same time working towards unification?  For we face a real danger that in our rush towards fragmentation as a perceived panacea for solving all difficulties, we will set off a chain reaction of increasing fragmentation into smaller and smaller parts without a well-designed link between the parts.  How much fragmentation is enough?  How small must the units be for people to feel secure and feel that they have a voice in their own destiny?  One can see that if left unchecked, this process can easily degenerate into an avalanche of greater and greater fragmentation and balkanization generated and fed by fear.  In a world in which interdependence is a fixed reality, this will only lead to conflict and despair.

Might not the real solution lie in deeper integration both in Europe and indeed in the world?  Such integration would signal a further step in the process of maturation of humanity as a whole.  Having evolved from a societal system comprising small but increasingly growing loyalties to clan, tribe, city-state and nation, isn't the next natural step in our societal evolution the creation of a federated superstate in which each individual embraces a larger loyalty that is entirely compatible with the lesser loyalty to her nation state?  Such a federated state can and should be designed to meet the legitimate needs of individual populations, granting them autonomy over many issues of particular concern to them while also guaranteeing the good of the whole by requiring that the federated parts cede certain rights to decision making to the federal government.  These latter rights should sensibly include the right of individual nations to make war on each other, relying on a central army serving the whole to maintain the peace, the right to manage critical natural resources including energy resources for the benefit of all the people of the world, thereby eliminating conflict and inequality of access to sources of energy, and certain rights to taxation in order to raise funds to tackle global problems such as global warming.

If we need a model or blueprint to guide us in undertaking such a vital and bold experiment, it is worth examining the federal system of the United States, which appears to have been relatively successful both in balancing the needs of the whole with the needs of the individual parts and in inculcating the principle of unity in diversity in its workings.

Building A World Federation -- An Idea Whose Time Has Come

The solution to many of our collective global problems lies in a closer integration and union of our diverse nations ultimately resulting in a world federation of states.  For a deeper exploration of this proposition,  I invite you to see my webinar entitled "Building A World Federation -- An Idea Whose Time Has Come" by clicking on the following link:  http://bahai-studies.ca/building-a-world-federation-an-idea-whose-time-has-come/

What Should We Do When A Nation Threatens The Peace?

This evening, the world's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), released a press statement saying that its mission to Iran had failed (yet again). Once again it appears that Iran is obstructing the international community's efforts to get to the bottom of Iran's nuclear activities and determine once and for all whether Iran is working towards building nuclear weapons or whether its nuclear program is, as it has repeatedly claimed, solely intended to meet the peaceful energy needs of its population. One would think that if the purpose was peaceful, Iran would be eager to have inspectors examine all its nuclear sites and produce satisfactory responses to the questions posed by the IAEA inspectors.

Iran's reasons for obfuscation and obstruction could be many and without solid facts, it is futile to speculate. What is abundantly evident and must be the center of our focus is the catastrophic course on which we are all embarked: If the international community continues down the path of making shrill demands unsupported by unified, decisive action, (other than incrementally broader sanctions) and if Iran continues to behave provocatively and meets the demands of the international community by turning a deaf ear, the risks of an all-out conflagration in the Middle East which no body wants, will continue to escalate until we reach the point of no return. A Middle East war has the potential to drag the entire international community into its orbit with all the devastation that such a world war would entail. Is this really the result we want? If not, then we must get off this path immediately and seek a safer and more sensible alternative.

We need to be very clear about the costs of inaction: What happens when we, the international community and the community of nations, abdicate our collective responsibility to act in unity to devise a collective system of security that ensures the safety of one and all? At this stage in our collective evolution, nothing short of a global collective security pact in which all nations (yes, all without exception) agree to eliminate nuclear weapons, to keep their conventional weapons to a the minimum required to preserve the peace within their borders and to rise against a nation that brazenly threatens the peace of the world will suffice to keep global peace. Such a pact must be backed by an international standing force that we have put off establishing for too long and must be based on a set of internationally agreed rules clearly delineating the circumstances in which it can be used.

What makes this alternative path, our only hope for salvation is the parity of treatment that is accorded all nations, as determined by international rules arrived at by consensus of the international community. We must let go of all our double standards and systems of "haves" and have nots". If one nation has nuclear weapons, others will want them and eventually someone will use them either deliberately or accidentally. Therefore no one can be allowed to have them. The other element that makes this alternative path viable and effective is the unity of action it requires. There is tremendous power in speaking with one voice and acting as one, especially in the face of would-be bullies on the playground of international affairs.

If we had not wasted past opportunities to put such a system in place, chances are Iran would not be making so bold as to play cat and mouse games with the IAEA and to make aggressive statements that merely serve to raise the levels of suspicion and mistrust. Then again, were such a system in place, the response of the global community in the face of such statements would be a unified and decisive one based on the rule of law. As it is now, individual nations who feel threatened by Iran's nuclear program may feel the need to respond aggressively based on the momentary requirements of expediency to defend themselves. Alas, any unilateral or coalition action is fraught with dangers for one and all and is likely to so the seeds of new problems as we have already seen in Afghanistan and Iraq.

So let us take up the challenge of our times and begin the painstaking but immeasurably rewarding work of building a collective system of security that will ensure the safety of our children and the generations to come.